Otis, where your born an ***** or is something you come here to work on?
-- You cited articles without reading them. If you had, and paid attention
to the details, you would know that your claims are not valid.

Now check your meds. What you have is not working.

In <c6lvka$cl8$2@216.221.129.222>, on 04/27/2004
at 03:52 PM, Otis Campbell <Cell2@MayberryRFD.com> said:

Denial... is a wonderful thing to watch.

we won, you lost...

NA-NA-NA- NANANA!

40 years of socialism and social engineering FLUSHED AWAY in 1994, 1996,
1998, 2000, 2002, 2004 and ... ?

A republican governor in California and another actor... you know I hear
talk of amending the constitution to allow Arnie to run for Prez...

lol@U

Sure... Gore Won. In a pigs eye.

In <c6kk2q$l2q$3@216.221.129.222>, on 04/27/2004
at 03:29 AM, Otis Campbell <Cell2@Mayberryrfd.com> said:

As many as 3,750 convicted felons may have illegally voted for Gore in
Florida. Palm Beach
County refused to purge convicted felons from their voter
roles.

Try again. the actual number was 445. -- First we don't know who they
voted for, and second, it points to why all FL votes should have been
recounted.

-- But as we all know, duba chose to steal the election, rather then let
the votes of the people be counted. But hey, he's trying to make up for
by bringing democracy to Iraq -- so he claims.

As many as 75% of illegal 'felon' votes cast in Florida were cast by
registered Democrats.
http://www.adversity.net/florida/Frame_Fla_Stories/Florida_Felons.htm

OOPS it looks like Gore loses again!

In <c6jrcl$a9s$3@216.221.129.222>, on 04/26/2004
at 08:28 PM, Otis Campbell <Cell2@MayberryRFD.com> said:

Mr. N wrote:

"Giant Fraud Kerrée" <KerryJoke@dnc.org> wrote in message
news:4Bbjc.11804$gH6.6699@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

In 2000, the Gore camp ran a vicious campaign, out loud, which claimed

Bush

was "a moron".

He *is* a moron.

Then Bush beat both McCain AND Gore.

And now he's beating Kerry.

Gore got more votes than Bush in 2000.

Is that counting the convicted felon votes? Including the non-citizen
vote? The U.W. students that voted 35 times? How about the NYC voters
that flew to Florida, voted there because they own a summer home there
then voted absentee in NY?

And the proof of this is found where?

Kerry will get a LOT more votes than Bush in 2004.

--
-My Real Name

PRO-AMERICA / ANTI-BUSH
Be Patriotic: VOTE BUSH OUT

***************************************
Listen to Air America Radio
http://www.airamericaradio.com
***************************************

Senator Covered Up Evidence of P.O.W.'s Left Behind
When John Kerry's Courage Went M.I.A.
by Sydney H. Schanberg
February 24th, 2004 1:00 PM

Senator John Kerry, a decorated battle veteran, was courageous
as a
navy lieutenant in the Vietnam War. But he was not so courageous
more than two decades later, when he covered up voluminous
evidence
that a significant number of live American prisoners-perhaps
hundreds-were never acknowledged or returned after the
war-ending
treaty was signed in January 1973.
The Massachusetts senator, now seeking the presidency, carried
out
this subterfuge a little over a decade ago- shredding documents,
suppressing testimony, and sanitizing the committee's final
report-when he was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on
P.O.W./ M.I.A. Affairs.
Over the years, an abundance of evidence had come to light that
the
North Vietnamese, while returning 591 U.S. prisoners of war
after
the treaty signing, had held back many others as future
bargaining
chips for the $4 billion or more in war reparations that the
Nixon
administration had pledged. Hanoi didn't trust Washington to
fulfill
its promise without pressure. Similarly, Washington didn't trust
Hanoi to return all the prisoners and carry out all the treaty
provisions. The mistrust on both sides was merited. Hanoi held
back
prisoners and the U.S. provided no reconstruction funds.
The stated purpose of the special Senate committee-which
convened in
mid 1991 and concluded in January 1993-was to investigate the
evidence about prisoners who were never returned and find out
what
happened to the missing men. Committee chair Kerry's larger and
different goal, though never stated publicly, emerged over time:
He
wanted to clear a path to normalization of relations with Hanoi.
In
any other context, that would have been an honorable goal. But
getting at the truth of the unaccounted for P.O.W.'s and
M.I.A.'s
(Missing In Action) was the main obstacle to normalization-and
therefore in conflict with his real intent and plan of action.
Kerry denied back then that he disguised his real goal,
contending
that he supported normalization only as a way to learn more
about
the missing men. But almost nothing has emerged about these
prisoners since diplomatic and economic relations were restored
in
1995, and thus it would appear-as most realists expected-that
Kerry's explanation was hollow. He has also denied in the past
the
allegations of a cover-up, either by the Pentagon or himself.
Asked
for comment on this article, the Kerry campaign sent a quote
from
the senator: "In the end, I think what we can take pride in is
that
we put together the most significant, most thorough, most
exhaustive
accounting for missing and former P.O.W.'s in the history of
human
warfare."
What was the body of evidence that prisoners were held back? A
short
list would include more than 1,600 firsthand sightings of live
U.S.
prisoners; nearly 14,000 secondhand reports; numerous
intercepted
Communist radio messages from within Vietnam and Laos about
American
prisoners being moved by their captors from one site to another;
a
series of satellite photos that continued into the 1990s showing
clear prisoner rescue signals carved into the ground in Laos and
Vietnam, all labeled inconclusive by the Pentagon; multiple
reports
about unacknowledged prisoners from North Vietnamese informants
working for U.S. intelligence agencies, all ignored or declared
unreliable; persistent complaints by senior U.S. intelligence
officials (some of them made publicly) that live-prisoner
evidence
was being suppressed; and clear proof that the Pentagon and
other
keepers of the "secret" destroyed a variety of files over the
years
to keep the P.O.W./M.I.A. families and the public from finding
out
and possibly setting off a major public outcry.
The resignation of Colonel Millard Peck in 1991, the first year
of
the Kerry committee's tenure, was one of many vivid landmarks in
this saga's history. Peck had been the head of the Pentagon's
P.O.W./M.I.A. office for only eight months when he resigned in
disgust. In his damning departure statement, he wrote: "The
mind-set
to 'debunk' is alive and well. It is held at all levels . . .
Practically all analysis is directed to finding fault with the
source. Rarely has there been any effective, active
follow-through
on any of the sightings . . . The sad fact is that . . . a
cover-up
may be in progress. The entire charade does not appear to be an
honest effort and may never have been."
Finally, Peck said: "From what I have witnessed, it appears that
any
soldier left in Vietnam, even inadvertently, was in fact
abandoned
years ago, and that the farce that is being played is no more
than
political legerdemain done with 'smoke and mirrors' to stall the
issue until it dies a natural death."

What did Kerry do in furtherance of the cover-up? An overview
would
include the following: He allied himself with those carrying it
out
by treating the Pentagon and other prisoner debunkers as
partners in
the investigation instead of the targets they were supposed to
be.
In short, he did their bidding. When Defense Department
officials
were coming to testify, Kerry would have his staff director,
Frances
Zwenig, meet with them to "script" the hearings-as detailed in
an
internal Zwenig memo leaked by others. Zwenig also advised North
Vietnamese officials on how to state their case. Further, Kerry
never pushed or put up a fight to get key government documents
unclassified; he just rolled over, no matter how obvious it was
that
the documents contained confirming data about prisoners.
Moreover,
after promising to turn over all committee records to the
National
Archives when the panel concluded its work, the senator
destroyed
crucial intelligence information the staff had gathered-to to
keep
the documents from becoming public. He refused to subpoena past
presidents and other key witnesses.
When revelatory sworn testimony was given to the committee by
President Reagan's national security adviser, Richard
Allen-about a
credible proposal from Hanoi in 1981 to return more than 50
prisoners for a $4 billion ransom-Kerry had that testimony taken
in
a closed door interview, not a public hearing. But word leaked
out
and a few weeks later, Allen sent a letter to the committee, not
under oath, recanting his testimony, saying his memory had
played
tricks on him. Kerry never did any probe into Allen's original,
detailed account, and instead accepted his recantation as gospel
truth.
A Secret Service agent then working at the White House, John
Syphrit, told committee staffers he had overheard part of a
conversation about the Hanoi proposal for ransom. He said he was
willing to testify but feared reprisal from his Treasury
Department
superiors and would need to be subpoenaed so that his appearance
could not be regarded as voluntary. Kerry refused to subpoena
him.
Syphrit told me that four men were involved in that
conversation-Reagan, Allen, Vice President George H.W. Bush, and
CIA
director William Casey. I wrote the story for Newsday.
The final Kerry report brushed off the entire episode like
unsightly
dust. It said: "The committee found no credible evidence of any
such
[ransom] offer being made."

A newcomer to this subject matter might reasonably ask why there
was
no great public outrage, no sustained headlines, no national
demand
for investigations, no penalties imposed on those who had
hidden,
and were still hiding, the truth. The simple, overarching
explanation was that most Americans wanted to put Vietnam behind
them as fast as possible. They wanted to forget this failed war,
not
deal with its truths or consequences. The press suffered from
the
same ostrich syndrome; no major media organization ever carried
out
an in-depth investigation by a reporting team into the prisoner
issue. When prisoner stories did get into the press, they would
have
a one-day life span, never to be followed up on. When three
secretaries of defense from the Vietnam era-James Schlesinger,
Melvin Laird, and Elliot Richardson-testified before the Kerry
committee, under oath, that intelligence they received at the
time
convinced them that numbers of unacknowledged prisoners were
being
held by the Communists, the story was reported by the press just
that once and then dropped. The New York Times put the story on
page
one but never pursued it further to explore the obvious
ramifications.
At that public hearing on September 21, 1992, toward the end of
Schlesinger's testimony, the former defense secretary, who
earlier
had been CIA chief, was asked a simple question: "In your view,
did
we leave men behind?"
He replied: "I think that as of now, I can come to no other
conclusion."
He was asked to explain why Nixon would have accepted leaving
men
behind. He said: "One must assume that we had concluded that the
bargaining position of the United States . . . was quite weak.
We
were anxious to get our troops out and we were not going to roil
the
waters . . . "
Another example of a story not pursued occurred at the Paris
peace
talks. The North Vietnamese failed to provide a list of the
prisoners until the treaty was signed. Afterward, when they
turned
over the list, U.S. intelligence officials were taken aback by
how
many believed prisoners were not included. The Vietnamese were
returning only nine men from Laos. American records showed that
more
than 300 were probably being held. A story about this stunning
gap,
by New York Times Pentagon reporter John W. Finney, appeared on
the
paper's front page on February 2, 1973. The story said:
"Officials
emphasized that the United States would be seeking clarification
. .
. " No meaningful explanation was ever provided by the
Vietnamese or
by the Laotian Communist guerrillas, the Pathet Lao, who were
satellites of Hanoi.
As a bombshell story for the media, particularly the Washington
press corps, it was there for the taking. But there were no
takers.
I was drawn to the P.O.W. issue because of my reporting years
for
The New York Times during the Vietnam War, where I came to
believe
that our soldiers were being misled and disserved by our
government.
After the war, military people who knew me and others who knew
my
work brought me information about live sightings of P.O.W.'s
still
in captivity and other evidence about their existence. When the
Kerry committee was announced (I was by then a columnist at
Newsday), I thought the senator-having himself become
disillusioned
about the Vietnam War, and eventually an advocate against
it-might
really be committed to digging out the truth. This was wishful
thinking.
In the committee's early days, Kerry had given encouraging
indications of being a committed investigator. He said he had
"leads" to the existence of P.O.W.'s still in captivity. He said
the
number of these likely survivors was more than 100 and that this
was
the minimum. But in a very short time, he stopped saying such
things
and morphed his role into one of full alliance with the
executive
branch, the Pentagon, and other Washington hierarchies, joining
their long-running effort to obscure and deny that a significant
number of live American prisoners had not been returned. As many
as
700 withheld P.O.W.'s were cited in credible intelligence
documents,
including a speech by a senior North Vietnamese general that was
discovered in Soviet archives by an American scholar.
Here are details of a few of the specific steps Kerry took to
hide
evidence about these P.O.W.'s.
He gave orders to his committee staff to shred crucial
intelligence documents. The shredding stopped only when some
intelligence staffers staged a protest. Some wrote internal
memos
calling for a criminal investigation. One such memo-from John
F.
McCreary, a lawyer and staff intelligence analyst-reported
that
the committee's chief counsel, J. William Codinha, a longtime
Kerry friend, "ridiculed the staff members" and said, "Who's
the
injured party?" When staffers cited "the 2,494 families of the
unaccounted-for U.S. servicemen, among others," the McCreary
memo
continued, Codinha said: "Who's going to tell them? It's
classified."

Kerry defended the shredding by saying the documents weren't
originals, only copies-but the staff's fear was that with the
destruction of the copies, the information would never get
into
the public domain, which it didn't. Kerry had promised the
staff
that all documents acquired and prepared by the committee
would be
turned over to the National Archives at the committee's
expiration. This didn't happen. Both the staff and independent
researchers reported that many critical documents were
withheld.

Another protest memo from the staff reported: "An internal
Department of Defense Memorandum identifies Frances Zwenig
[Kerry's staff director] as the conduit to the Department of
Defense for the acquisition of sensitive and restricted
information from this Committee . . . lines of investigation
have
been seriously compromised by leaks" to the Pentagon and
"other
agencies of the executive branch." It also said the Zwenig
leaks
were "endangering the lives and livelihood of two witnesses."

A number of staffers became increasingly upset about Kerry's
close
relationship with the Department of Defense, which was
supposed to
be under examination. (***** Cheney was then defense
secretary.) It
had become clear that Kerry, Zwenig, and others close to the
chairman, such as Senator John McCain of Arizona, a dominant
committee member, had gotten cozy with the officials and
agencies
supposedly being probed for obscuring P.O.W. information over
the
years. Committee hearings, for example, were being
orchestrated to
suit the examinees, who were receiving lists of potential
questions in advance. Another internal memo from the period,
by a
staffer who requested anonymity, said: "Speaking for the other
investigators, I can say we are sick and tired of this
investigation being controlled by those we are supposedly
investigating."

The Kerry investigative technique was equally soft in many
other
critical ways. He rejected all suggestions that the committee
require former presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and George H.W.
Bush to testify. All were in the Oval Office during the
Vietnam
era and its aftermath. They had information critical to the
committee, for each president was carefully and regularly
briefed
by his national security adviser and others about P.O.W.
developments. It was a huge issue at that time.

Kerry also refused to subpoena the Nixon office tapes (yes,
the
Watergate tapes) from the early months of 1973 when the
P.O.W.'s
were an intense subject because of the peace talks and the
prisoner return that followed. (Nixon had rejected committee
requests to provide the tapes voluntarily.) Information had
seeped
out for years that during the Paris talks and afterward, Nixon
had
been briefed in detail by then national security advisor Brent
Scowcroft and others about the existence of P.O.W.'s whom
Hanoi
was not admitting to. Nixon, distracted by Watergate,
apparently
decided it was crucial to get out of the Vietnam mess
immediately,
even if it cost those lives. Maybe he thought there would be
other
chances down the road to bring these men back. So he approved
the
peace treaty and on March 29, 1973, the day the last of the
591
acknowledged prisoners were released in Hanoi, Nixon announced
on
national television: "All of our American P.O.W.'s are on
their
way home."

The Kerry committee's final report, issued in January 1993,
delivered the ultimate insult to history. The 1,223-page
document
said there was "no compelling evidence that proves" there is
anyone
still in captivity. As for the primary investigative
question -what
happened to the men left behind in 1973-the report conceded only
that there is "evidence . . . that indicates the possibility of
survival, at least for a small number" of prisoners 31 years
ago,
after Hanoi released the 591 P.O.W.'s it had admitted to.
With these word games, the committee report buried the issue-and
the
men.
The huge document contained no findings about what happened to
the
supposedly "small number." If they were no longer alive, then
how
did they die? Were they executed when ransom offers were
rejected by
Washington?
Kerry now slides past all the radio messages, satellite photos,
live
sightings, and boxes of intelligence documents-all the evidence.
In
his comments for this piece, this candidate for the presidency
said:
"No nation has gone to the lengths that we did to account for
their
dead. None-ever in history."
Of the so-called "possibility" of a "small number" of men left
behind, the committee report went on to say that if this did
happen,
the men were not "knowingly abandoned," just "shunted aside."
How do
you put that on a gravestone?
In the end, the fact that Senator Kerry covered up crucial
evidence
as committee chairman didn't seem to bother too many
Massachusetts
voters when he came up for re-election-or the recent voters in
primary states. So I wouldn't predict it will be much of an
issue in
the presidential election come November. It seems there is no
constituency in America for missing Vietnam P.O.W.'s except for
their families and some veterans of that war.
A year after he issued the committee report, on the night of
January
26, 1994, Kerry was on the Senate floor pushing through a
resolution
calling on President Clinton to lift the 19-year-old trade
embargo
against Vietnam. In the debate, Kerry belittled the opposition,
saying that those who still believed in abandoned P.O.W.'s were
perpetrating a hoax. "This process," he declaimed, "has been led
by
a certain number of charlatans and exploiters, and we should not
allow fiction to cloud what we are trying to do here."
Kerry's resolution passed, by a vote of 62 to 38. Sadly for him,
the
passage of ten thousand resolutions cannot make up for wants in
a
man's character.

Shortly after the resolution passed, John Kerrys cousin became the sole
beneficiary of all real estate dealings in Viet Nam and he and Mr. Kerry got
very rich. John Kerry sold the souls of our kids for a lousy fortune.

--
If you don't vote, you are the problem.
Because by not voting, you have
voted for the status quo.

Brooks Gregory
www.theaapc.org
www.campaignline.com